Subject: Re: wittgenstein, lyotard, foucault
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:52:46 PST


>I had an experience this semester where someone turned to me in class 
and
>asked "So, are you a deconstructionist?"  I was very annoyed.  I sensed
>that this guy had already made up his mind about the matter and if I
>answered one way I would "lose", if I answered the opposite I would 
also
>"lose".  So I said "yes and no", which bothered him even further. 

This type of thing (a differend?) is very much a part of the academic 
culture, at least here in Australia.  Foucault referred to "the mimes 
and tumblers who debate whether or not I am a structuralist".  I think 
that in answering these types of questions, or more, defining oneself in 
these terms, profoundly undercuts the philosophical task.  Some 
questions must not be answered because the terms they are offered in do 
violence to possibility.

Thanks for what you wrote on Husserl, it was much appreciated.  A good 
philosopher is an omnivore, so you've helped me get a taste for a new 
kind of food.

I have nothing to add about Husserl, but one observation to offer.  Your 
choice of method, or rather your way of working with the Husserl 
material is interesting - it reminded me of Lyotard a bit, actually.  

>My feeling is one of
>frustration because both Lyotard and Lacoue-Labarthe try to sketch a 
way
>of philosophically talking about the Holocaust but in doing so their 
use
>of theory falls flat.  Is this all they can do, is what I want to say 
at
>times.  It is not enough.
>
>But as I said before I don't know what would be "enough".

Well, Adorno talked of the impossibility and obscenity of writing poetry 
after Aushwitz (spelling?).  I have often thought that this observation 
has a lot to say to philosophy too.

Best wishes
Jon

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com